Case 1306701/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs B Bradbury v Barchester Healthcare Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306701/2019
- Decision date
- 23 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs B Bradbury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided that Mrs Bradbury was unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing and the written judgment records the outcome and remedy only.
The Tribunal made reductions to compensation. It held that a 50% Polkey deduction should apply to compensation for unfair dismissal, that the claimant caused or contributed to her dismissal so a 25% reduction would apply to the compensatory award, and that the basic award should be reduced by 25% because of the claimant's conduct before dismissal.
The claimant was awarded £6,112.26 as a basic award after reduction. The Tribunal found that she had failed to mitigate her losses at all and was not entitled to compensation for lost earnings, but awarded £100 for loss of statutory rights after the reductions to the compensatory award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found unfair dismissal contrary to s94 ERA. The award comprised a basic award of £6,112.26 and £100 for loss of statutory rights; no lost earnings were awarded. | Upheld | — | £6,212 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,212
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £6,112
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £100
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited
- s122(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.